r v matthews and alleyne

As he pulled the trigger the chamber turned and the gun went off killing the boy. He returned early because of an argument. of course, well known to us all that for very many years it has been common form for judges The Court of Appeal substituted a conviction of ABH under s.47 OAPA 1861 and certified a point of law to the House of Lords as to whether it was necessary under s.20 to establish that the defendant intended or was reckless as to the infliction of GBH or whether it was sufficient that the defendant foresaw some harm. Did Hyam have the requisite intention to commit murder? Key principle Accordingly, we reject Mr. The trial judge held that he could not be convicted of murder or manslaughter since at the time of the attack the foetus was not in law classed as a human being and thus the mens rea aimed at the mother could not be transferred to the foetus as it would constitute a different offence. A number of persons made a planned attack on V. Many of the attackers were armed with blunt instruments. The trial judge ruled that following the decision in R v Kennedy [1999] Crim LR 65, the self-injection by Escott of the heroin was itself an unlawful act. Whilst there were several errors in the judge's direction the conviction for manslaughter was safe. defence. The victim was a hitchhiker picked up by Mr Williams; Mr Davis and Mr Bobat were Neither trial counsel nor the judge concluded that the issue of provocation should be left to the jury, despite the prosecutions observation in response to the defendants evidence as to his sexual performance (which had arisen for the first time in evidence) that he might have lost control as a result of the deceased mocking him. V was stabbed to death. alive: It frequently happens that a child is born as far as the head is concerned, and breathes, but The jury rejected self-defence and convicted him of murder. To criminalise consensual taking of such risks would be impractical and would be haphazard in its impact. R v MATTHEWS AND ALLEYNE [2003] EWCA Crim 192 (CA) The reasoning of the House was based on the need for the criminal law to respect free will and to treat the victim, being an adult of sound mind, as an autonomous individual. Their co-defendants were Dwayne Dawkins (then 20) and Jason Canepe (also 20). Subsequently, the appeal was upheld and the charge against the defendant lessened. look at the text books on the subject, and has demonstrated to us that the text books in the It was held that the act of the lover walking to her work place could amount to a provocative act and the issue of provocation should have been put before the jury. They threw him off the bridge into the river below despite hearing the victim say that he could not swim. 821, Mary and Jodie were conjoined twins joined at the pelvis. The court established the but for test of causation, according to which the defendant could not be convicted unless it could be shown that but for his actions the victim would not have died. I would answer the certified question in the negative and dismiss the appeals of the appellants against conviction. Based on these failures, joint enterprise could not be proven and, consequently, the case for robbery failed. where the injury does not result in death (as in the present case) the obligation to retreat does In support of this submission no authority is quoted, save that Mr. McHale has been at considerable length and diligence to look at the text books on the subject, and has demonstrated to us that the text books in the main do not say that preliminary retreat is a necessary prerequisite to the use of force in self-defence. Bishop ran off, tripped and landed in the gutter of the road. inflicted: (ii) to a mother carrying a child in utero. The victim was intolerant to In the case of R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003], the victim was thrown to the river after robbing by the defendants. conviction was substituted with manslaughter conviction. [5]The courts indicated that there are two questions that should be considered:[6]. The defendants appealed to the House of Lords. The defendant prepared a dose of heroin for the victim, then passed him the syringe so that he could self inject. Her husband verbally abused her when she arrived home calling her a big ass for getting help and refusing it. Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95 is applied the victims response was foreseeable taking into Further, when criminal investigation or conviction is required where consensual activity between a couple occurs in the privacy of their own home. Firstly, the evidence shown in order to prove the presence of a joint enterprise to rob the It did not command respect among practitioners and judges. The appellant had also raised trial judge misled the jury into believing that if the appellant had acted wickedly, he had also by way of diminished responsibility. That direction was given before the publication of the speeches in the House of Lords in Moloney (1985) AC 905 and Hancock (1986) 2 V.L.R. The baby suffered a fractured skull and died. judge had widen the definition of murder and should have referred to virtual certainty in she would die but still refused to countenance treatment as a result of her religious He was convicted of constructive manslaughter and appealed. Did the victims refusal to accept medical treatment constitute a novus actus interveniens and The appellant admitted to committing arson but stated that he never wished anyone to die. 17 days after the incident the woman went into premature labour and [19]Alan Norrie initially agrees that the decision appears to end the long-running saga concerning indirect [oblique] intention, but suggests that the case of Woollin may not be the last word in this area of intention as it may not be impossible to achieve a conclusive position in the law of [oblique] intention[20]and that Woollin leaves unansweredthe moral basis for judging someone a murderer. laid down in R v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95 was to be applied because of an omission on Once at the hospital, he received negligent medical treatment; the medics failed to diagnose a puncture to his lung. The appellant and Edward Escott were both vagrants and drug addicts. The defendant was an experienced amateur boxer. 220 , [1962] 3 WLR 1461, 106 Sol Jo 1008, PC), and amended by R v Bunting ((1965), 8 If a person does an act on another which amounts to the infliction of grievous bodily harm, he cannot say: I did not intend to go further than so-and-so. If he intends to inflict grievous bodily harm and the injured person dies, that has always been held in English law, and was so held at the time when this act was passed, sufficient to supply the malice aforethought., The Court of Appeal approved this direction to the jury by the judge for future use: Malice will be implied, if the victim was killed by a voluntary act of the accused . Because we accept this dictum as sound it is necessary for us to state what we now consider to be the proper definition of provocation arising as it does from R v Duffy (, n, CCA) elaborated in Lee Chun-Chuen v R (, , , 106 Sol Jo 1008, PC), and amended by R v Bunting ((1965), ). At the trial, it was accepted that the boys thought the fire would extinguish itself on the concrete floor and that neither appreciated that it might spread to the buildings. Woke her husband and again asked him to come to bed. Secondly, the victims consent might be relevant to the finding of recklessness or gross negligence but consent in itself is not a defence to manslaughter. The victim was a Jehovahs Witness whose religious views The An unlawful act must also be dangerous and the defendants must have reasonably foreseen that this would be dangerous. The accused left the yard with the papers still burning. [21]Arfan Khan identifies that when a judge directs a jury to infer the requisite intention that this in effect increases the weight of the prosecution evidence; this appears to be contrary to article 6.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A woman called him a 'white nigger'. foresight and intention were unsatisfactory as they were likely to mislead a jury. A man was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm of a female ex-colleague. Rep. 152.. R v Smith (1959) 2 Q. The chain of causation was not broken. There was no factual comparison to be made between the actions of Wilson and the facts presented in R vBrown and there was no aggressive intent on the part of Wilson. Jordan, who worked for the United States Air Force, stabbed a man as the result of a It was very close indeed, since he broke the window, and he was charged with criminal damage. It follows that that the jury must The defendants demanded money but did not touch the attendant who pressed the alarm button and the defendants ran away without obtaining any cash. Conspiracy - Rape - Conspiracy to Rape a Child - Sexual Offences - Judicial Direction - Appeal. Fagan did so, reversed his car and rolled it on to the foot of the police officer. On the facts, there could be no true consent as the women had consented only to acts of a medical nature, when in fact the actions of the appellant were without any medical significance. The Crown contended that inadvertent (Caldwell) recklessness would suffice for a charge under s.47. Rep. 269.. R v Cato [1976] 1 WLR 110.. R v Cheshire (1991) 3 All E. 670 R v Williams (1992) 2 All E. 183 C.. R v Dear [1996] Crim LR 595 R v Corbett [1996] Crim. House of Lords held Murder conviction was substituted with manslaughter conviction. However, the defendants ignored what the victim's said and thrown him to river and watching him drown. (i) in Mary's best interest, On this basis, the appellant was charged with six counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The Attorney General referred to the Court of Appeal the questions (i) whether, subject to proof of the requisite intent, the deliberate infliction of injury to a child in utero or to its mother could amount to murder or manslaughter where the child was born alive but subsequently died either wholly or partly as a result of the injuries inflicted on it or its mother while it was in utero, and (ii) whether the fact that the death of the child resulted solely from the injury to the mother rather than direct injury to the foetus negatived liability for murder or manslaughter of the child. The judge directed the jury that statements to the police could only be used against the maker of the statement, but Mr Williams argued that the evidence was too tenuous to go before the jury, and that his conviction was inconsistent with Mr Bobats acquittal. Otherwise, as must be clear, defendants might be encouraged to run one defence at trial in the belief that if it fails, this court would allow a different defence to be raised and give the defendant, in effect, two opportunities to run different defences. With respect to the issue of duress, the court held that as the threat was made some time before the relevant confession and was no longer active at the time of the defendants statement, it did not render the evidence inadmissible. students are currently browsing our notes. The neighbours car then disappeared and she and two men went to the appellant's house to question him about it. intended result.22 But, in Matthews and Alleyne, his approach was interpreted as a rule of evidence and not one of substantive law.23 The model direction endorsed by Lord Steyn also implies that it is a rule of He claimed she owed him money and tied her up and took her to a cash point and forced her to reveal her code knife point. the defence had been raised. Medical evidence was such that the mother died from a sustained attack rather than from a fall. The chain of causation between the defendants act in supplying the drug and the victims death was therefore incomplete. 1025 R v Woolin (1998) 4 All E. 103 R v Matthews and R v Alleyne (2003) 2 Cr. Further, the jury should have been directed that the victims actions must be proportional to the gravity of the threat. However, on appeal it was found that Konzanis concealment of his HIV status was incongruent with honesty. and manslaughter. The jury was asked to decide whether the injection caused, contributed to or accelerated the victims death. They had also introduced abnormal quantities of fluid which waterlogged the victims lungs. The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions and certified the following point of law of general public importance: "Where A wounds or assaults B occasioning him actual bodily harm in the course of a sadomasochistic encounter, does the prosecution have to prove lack of consent on the part of B before they can establish A's guilt under section 20 and section 47 of the 1861, Offences Against the Person Act?". They were convicted and the CA dismissed their appeal. The victim received medical treatment The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal but certified the following question to the House of Lords: "In cases of manslaughter by criminal negligence not involving driving but involving a breach of duty is it a sufficient direction to the jury to adopt the gross negligence test set out by the Court of Appeal in the present case following R. v. Bateman (1925) 19 Cr. mens rea aimed at the mother could not be transferred to the foetus as it would constitute a Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. The defendant, a minor, shot multiple rounds from an air gun at a group of people, of which one airgun pellet hit the victim, also a minor, in the face, which ruptured internal blood vessels near the victims eye, causing bruising and swelling. medical treatment; the medics failed to diagnose a puncture to his lung. The officer forcefully told him to move the car off his foot at which point Fagan swore at him and refused to move vehicle and turned the engine off. Appeal dismissed. The paving slab went through a glass window on the cab of the train and struck the guard killing him. Konzani was HIV positive and aware of his condition. App. In most cases, a simple direction on intention is enough, without referring to foresight. his evidence, was that the deceased, with whom he had lived as man and wife for three or A fight developed during which the appellant knocked her unconscious. D, who was suffering from an adjustment disorder in the form of depressed grief reaction to the death of his aunt, was upset by Vs disrespectful behavior. The conviction for manslaughter was upheld. The direction was based on a passage in the 41st Edition of Archbold, which has been repeated in the 42nd Edition, paragraph 17-13. None. A. Matthews, Lincolnshire Regiment, a native of British Gui. Appeal dismissed. Criminal Law Cases Flashcards | Quizlet When said wallet was searched it was found empty. He drowned, and the judge directed that if the boys death was appreciated by the defendants as a virtual certainty then the jury should convict of murder. If such breach of duty is established the next question is whether that breach of duty caused the death of the victim. Consent will be negatived if a person is deceived as to the nature or quality of the act performed. knife and stick in the car should not have been admitted. a novus actus intervenes. Mr Cato and the victim prepared their own syringes and then injected each other with heroin. My opinion in this case is, that the her house before pouring petrol through her letter box and igniting it. It was held that as the victim was a fully informed and consenting adult, who had freely and voluntarily self-administered the drug without any pressure from the defendant, this was an intervening act. The appellant was convicted at trial, with the judge instructing the jury that for the The appeal was allowed. The resulting fire killed two young children. She then tied the grandmother's mouth with a towel, closed the door of the house and went away. highly probable that the act would result in serious bodily harm to someone, even if he did The grievous bodily harm need not be permanent, but it must be serious, and it is serious or grievous if it is such as seriously and grievously to interfere with the health and comfort of the victim. Following these actions, she received two additional letters with threatening language. Appeal dismissed. She went to the kitchen got a knife and sharpened it then returned to the living room. In so doing he wrenched the gas pipes from the wall and gassed the next-door neighbour, whose life was endangered. The statute states 'whosoever being married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the former husband or wife is guilty of an offence'. Mr Cato argued that the trial judge had thus misdirected the jury. Vickers was convicted of murder on the basis that he intended to cause grievous bodily harm. After Lord Steyn's judgment in R v Woollin [8] (affirmed in R v Matthews & Alleyne [2004]) it is clear that, based on R v Moloney, foresight of death or grievous bodily harm as a mere probability is insufficient. When she appeared before the High Court on the 6th October 1999, she pleaded not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. various defences including provocation, self-defence and the fact that it was an accident.